UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1248

MARK ANTHONY ESPOSITO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
AMERICA ONLINE LATINO,
Plaintiff,
versus
VERISIGN, INCORPORATED;
INCORPORATED,

NETWORK

SOLUTIONS,
Defendants - Appellees,

and
AMERICA
ONLINE,
INCORPORATED;
INCORPORATED; INKTOMI CORPORATION,

DOTSTER,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CA-03-362-A)

Submitted:

July 29, 2004

Decided:

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

August 3, 2004

Mark Anthony Esposito, Appellant Pro Se.

Shari Claire Lewis,
RIVKIN RADLER, L.L.P., Uniondale, New York; Timothy Brooks Hyland,
LEFFLER, HYLAND, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:
Mark

Anthony

Esposito

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

courts order permanently enjoining him from utilizing a web name

likely to confuse the public.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the
district courts final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

This appeal period is mandatory

and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dept of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,
229 (1960)).
The district courts order was filed on August 1, 2003,
and entered on the docket on August 7, 2003.*
was filed on February 24, 2004.

The notice of appeal

Because Esposito failed to file a

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of

the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

Esposito does not challenge on appeal the district courts

contempt order, which was filed January 22, 2004, and entered
January 23, 2004.
- 3 -